Science and Miracle:
Another Approach
Recently I sat down one evening to read the December 1978 issue of the Journal
ASA and found its three articles on Science vs. Miracle interesting
and stimulating.
But at the same time, I could not help feeling that really they had
serious difficulties,
for none of them seemed to deal with the question from a specifically Christian
point of view. For people writing in the Journal on this subject this seemed to
be rather strange. Hence this article,
John Montgomery stressed at the beginning of his article that he felt
that miracle,
particularly the resurrection of Jesus Christ, was a sound evidence
of the Christian
position. This theme he has reiterated in a great number of places
over the past
years. Yet I was astonished to read on in the article and discover
that his whale
argument was purely rationalistic in an endeavour to convince the
unbeliever that
miracles proved the Gospel. Approaching the whole question with his particular
presuppositions, which he does not seem to recognize as being presuppositions,
he maintains
"that the more willing we are to allow empirical evidence of the
unique and
non-analogous to stand, modifying our general conceptions of
regularity accordingly,
the better scientists and philosophers we become. And the more willing we are
as Christians to employ the biblical and classic miracle apologetic, the more
effectively we can give reason to our dark age of secularism for the hope that
is within us."
So, presumably, on the basis of an empirical proof of the truth of miracle, we
can convince the unbeliever who will then be persuaded to accept the
Gospel.
When I turned to Stephen Wykstra's reply to Montgomery I hoped that
he would produce
an article which did not have nearly so much of Bishop Butler in it.
I found that
he did criticize Montgomery's position effectively, but when it came to looking
for something positive I was disappointed. Although he did not like
what Montgomery
had to say about Flew's book, he seemed to follow much the same
scientific-philosophical
method without producing anything really positive in the way of a
Christian argument
over against Flew and his cohorts.
The Basingers' article I found much more helpful for they sought to define what
a miracle is. But here again I discovered not a biblical, but a philosophical
discussion which sounded all very nice, but really produced nothing. They ended
up with what they called a miracle, but which in theological terms would simply
be providence. This they called "the 'weaker' concept of
miracle" which
they think "is sufficient for an intellectually defensible and
experientially
satisfying theistic belief system."
As on who has taught in secular universities for nigh on to forty years, I am
afraid that I cannot see any of these articles having much effect
upon my unbelieving
colleagues, whether in the arts, social science or scientific
departments. Their
response generally would be, if they were polite: "So what?" If they
were not polite, they would term the arguments not merely irrelevant,
but wrong.
I know for I have tried such argumentation, but it does not work.
SEPTEMBER 1979
One reason is that although (as the Basingers point out) a miracle is
a non-explicable
phenomenon, the average scientist will simply say, "Give us time
and we shall
explain it." Behind this assurance they have a good deal to support them.
When the Black Death hit Europe in the mid-fourteenth century everybody thought
the Plague was the result of magic and witchcraft, for there was no
logical explanation
for the way it acted. It was not until the nineteenth century that
the explanation
was finally shown to be the bubonic bacteria in the flea which was carried on
the back of the Chinese rat. The history of science gives us great numbers of
similar experiences. Therefore, when we present something to the
scientist which
we call a miracle, his answer almost inevitably will he, "Just
give me time
and I shall have the explanation." The inexplicable event never
really brings
conviction of divine interention in history.
Even if it did, there is another loophole for the unbeliever who does not wish
to be convinced: chance. As Sir James Jeans states in the opening pages of The
Mysterious Universe, everything which happens is ultimately by accident - even
all the books in the British Museum, presumably including Jeans'
Mysterious Universe
- so even if Montgomery proves scientifically that Christ rose on the
third day,
it would really signify only another accident. As Jeans puts it, if only time
lasts long enough every possible accident will happen. Proving a miracle really
has no compelling impact on the thinking of one whose presuppositions are all
geared to the acceptance of an ultimately chance universe.
Because of these two attitudes to the matter of miracle, the
nonChristian's approach
is virtually impregnable if we attempt to argue with him on his own ground. For
then we are approaching him and accepting his basic presupposition of the basic
normalcy of the human intellect and the validity of the scientific method for
all matters relating to a law or chance controlled physical universe.
He can then
either say "Wait and we shall have an explanation," or he
can interpret
everything we put forward to prove a miracle as simply a matter of accident in
a completely accidental world. On a purely empirical basis I do not think that
the Christian can convince anyone of the apologetic value of a miracle, for the
Christian in attempting to do so has surrendered the fort to the
enemy by assuming
a common ground of argument.
This is why, as a Christian, I object to the methods employed in all
three articles.
While they presumably accept the authority and the infallibility of the Bible,
they do not turn to it for their view of the nature and purpose of a miracle.
Instead they try to identify what a miracle is from some
philosophical-scientific
basis which ends up as simply something which will cause wonderment and awe, or
an inexplicable happening. Consequently they have no basis for using miracles
as an instrument of apologetics. In fact, a follower of Zoroaster would have as
much right to say that his religion is proven by this reasoning. The biblical
view of miracle is very different.
At the tame time, as pointed out in connection with the nonChristian reaction
to their reasoning, the authors of the articles seem to hold that an empirical
proof for miracles can be produced which will convict the non-Christian of the
truth of the Christian Gospel. But the Bible states specifically that this is
not the ease. This was the whole point of Paul's argument with the Corinthians
as set forth in the first two chapters of his first letter. Merely proving that
something inexplicable has happened means nothing, for it could have happened
merely by chance or it may be explicable after more research. This is why Paul
could say "But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit
of God for they are foolishness to him, and he is not able to know them because
they are judged spiritually." (I Cor. 2:14)
To deal with the problem of miracle and science, therefore, we mutt go first of
all to the Bible itself to understand the nature of a miracle. Here we see the
miracle, whether in the Old or the New Testament, as an act of God, whether it
is the rolling back of the Red Sea for the Israelites or the raising of Christ
from the dead. But it is more. It is an act of God without, above or
even contrary
to means, i.e., secondary causes. It is special direct action by the
divine power
to accomplish God's purpose and counsel. Therefore, while man may be
able to observe
the result, he cannot by any empirical means actually prove that this
is a miracle,
for in theCOMMUNICATIONS
very nature of the case God's actions are not subject to empirical
investigation,
as for instance we would conduct an experiment in a laboratory. God's actions
are beyond the scope of both our minds and our instruments.
We may use the term "miracle" loosely as do the Basingers when they
give as an example a student receiving $500 from a relative who has
had the idea
of sending this money to the student who has prayed for it. But is that truly
a miracle? Is it not really a special providence, even though we cannot explain
it empirically at this point? It is quite possible that there are
certain psychological
secondary causes which the Spirit could put in motion.
This in turn raises the question of the purpose of a miracle, which the writers
of the articles really do not touch. As we look at the Scriptures we see that
miracles are always for the purpose of accomplishing God's purpose of judgment
and redemption in history, not just for meeting the needs or wishes
of some individual.
And God uses miracles as a means of revealing his justice and his grace to his
people by his action. Therefore, a miracle is not just a bare event in history,
but is pregnant with meaning and significance to those who have the ability and
understanding to see. One cannot speak of such an event in purely
historical terms,
for although it takes place in history and is observed by man in
history, it has
meaning far beyond itself; one might say that it has eternal meaning.
Yet that a miracle is indeed a miracle and that it has this eternal meaning is
by no means obvious. This comes out in the reasoning in the articles
in question,
for the question of determining that a miracle is truly a miracle and not just
some event for which man has no immediate explanation or which is a product of
chance, can be known only as God himself makes the miraculous character of the
event known. This means that a miracle and its interpretation is grasped by the
human observer only through divine revelation, i.e., only when God says it is
a miracle with a certain significance. This revelation comes through the Holy
Spirit speaking in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament.
Some may object to this statement, but for the Christian where else
does one find
God's revelation of himself and of his actions? Only in the Bible do we learn
when and how God acts in history. True, we can guess at events which take place
in history outside the range of biblical interpretation, but do we
have any proof
that some inexplicable event is in fact God's direct, miraculous operation? I
do not think so. It would seem clear then, that to the Christian the only true
miracles of which we can have a certain knowledge are those which are recorded
for us in the Scriptures, which also give us their interpretation.
From the bare
fact of Christ's resurrection, can we by philosophical deduction conclude that
"he was raised for our justification"? I do not think so.
We know this
because of the interpretation of his resurrection which he himself
gave and which
the apostolic writers, such as Paul in I Corinthians 15, set forth. To know and
so understand a miracle, therefore, it is necessary to go back to the
Scriptures
as our source of information.
This means, however, that we must start with the inspiration and authority of
Scripture, not with miracles. If we believe that the Bible is the Word of God,
then we can accept miracles without any difficulty. But if we do not, all the
philosophizing in the world will never bring the conviction that
miracles do happen.
Man will always produce some other explanation of the event, or simply deny it,
because his presuppositions tell him that a miracle cannot happen, even as the
Jewish authorities, despite all the evidence and testimony to the
contrary, denied
that Christ had risen from the dead. (Mast. 28:llff) Thus, when Christians seek
to use miracles to prove to non-Christians that Christianity is true, they are
in fact getting nowhere, for "a man convinced against his will is of the
same opinion still."
Since the non-Christian, or the natural man oft Cor. 2:14, will not accept the
authority of the Scriptures, how can he be brought to believe that
the testimony
of the Scriptures is true? In the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries the tendency
was to say that we can prove that they are inspired and therefore
authoritative,
and there is much the same attitude among many evangelicals today.
But as Calvin
pointed out in the sixteenth century, the Bible itself states that no
one is going
to believe the testimony of the Scriptures apart
172
from, and without, the internal testimony of the Holy Spirit. (John
3:Sff, 6:bff;
I Cor. l:2lff). Only when one has become a new creature in Christ
through regeneration,
will he accept the teaching of the Scriptures, for only then will all
things become
new (2 Cur, 5:17). Then and then alone will he see and accept the validity of
the evidence for the resurrection of Christ, and for any other miracle recorded
in the Scriptures. Therefore, only as the Holy Spirit opens the eyes
of the spiritually
blind will philosophical and scientific arguments make any sense.
From this point of view, then, the argument over the relation of
miracle to science
is really irrelevant. The non-Christian will not accept the idea of miracle as
something which has valid meaning, as Christ pointed out in referring
to the idea
of Abraham being sent to speak to the brothers of Dives in the parable. (Luke
16:30, 31). They will not believe even if one rises from the dead, and we can
see how true this was in the reaction of the authorities to the
Easter resurrection.
To the Christian, however, there should be no problem. If Christ is Lord over
all creation, as Paul states in Colossians i:lsff, why should there
be any difficulty?
As Calvin, who had much to do with the development of the idea of natural law
pointed out, if all such law is the secret working of the Holy Spirit
in creation,
why should the idea of miracle be in any way in conflict with science? Science
is based upon the usual, uniform way in which creation operates, but
if God wills
to interfere or act without following this uniform way of operation, what will
prevent him? As Lord of creation he can do what he wills in this regard without
upsetting the general and normal way in which nature moves. Moreover,
if he also
gives us in the Scriptures an explanation of the fact that he has acted in this
way and why, is that not sufficient?
But what good are miracles in an apologetic framework if they are
limited to Scripture
and require the sight-giving action of the Holy Spirit? In the seventeenth and
eighteenth century, particularly before Hume, men tended to accept
the Scriptures
as being true historically, and so would listen to the arguments
based upon them.
With the rise of Humeian and Kantian scepticism coupled with biblical
higher criticism
and materialistic evolutionism, this acceptance has gone. In this
more sophisticated
(?) age quite frankly I do not think that the citing of evidence for miracles
really has all that much effect, with two exceptions. First of all,
it strengthens
the faith of the Christian, giving greater confidence that the Bible is indeed
the Word of God and that Christ is our living risen Savior. Secondly,
as we present
the evidence to the non-Christian we must truss that God in his grace will open
the eyes of the blind that they may see that the evidence is
convincing, convincing
enough to bring them to faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord. But to those
who remain blind miracles will have no effect, for like the Athenians on Mars
Hill when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, they will mock the whole
doctrine. (Acts. 17:32).
W. Stanford Reid Rt. 3, Box 199 Lake Placid Florida 33852

That humankind has changed cannot be questioned, but the degree and direction
of that change are open for debate. We would like to believe that we have made
progress, taken a definitive step forward, but have we? We have
traveled for millenia
by camel, horseback, horsedrawn cart or chariot, and in many
instances, by foot.
Only in recent history, has our mode of travel "advanced."
Today, instead
of chariots pulled by horses, we drive and ride in chariots of other kinds. A
god called gasoline fuels our machines of transportation, and we
consider ourselves
highly sophisticated for having harnessed this deity's power. But have travel
modes realty changed for the better? Has progress indeed been made? It is true
that we travel faster, but the price we have paid for speed is almost
immeasurable.
Our clean air is fast disappearing; death and disability due to jet age travel
is of monumental proportion; the world's supplies of petroleum are fast being
exhausted in the service of convenient, quick business and pleasure travel for
a relatively small number of the world's peoples.

Often, when scientists and philosophers of science write on the
subject of progress,
they state that our lot has improved greatly, especially since the
rise of modern
science. This improvement is usually defined in terms of longer
lives, more relaxed
life styles, less disease, and more power (both individual and societal). But
are there qualities inherent in longer life, more relaxed life
styles, less disease,
and more power which clearly establish them as improvements? The answer must be
no, for one can show that longer lives and less disease for some contribute to
shorter lives and more disease for others. The chronically ill and elderly of
our societies are now living long lives, and are thus helping to
reduce the food
supply for the more healthy and productive segments of society. The answer must
be no also, because it can be easily demonstrated that more power and
more relaxed
life styles have been as detrimental as they have been helpful. The
gluttony and
all-around over-indulgence of a leisure society leaves sears in the
forms of obesity,
alcoholism, and drug addiction. The power and freedom which come to
us as individuals
and societies through modern technologies may soon be entities of the past, as
they are contributing to air and land pollution, waste, and overall degraduation.

André Cournand sets forth a clear statement on progress in a
recent issue
of Science. He says in an article entitled "The Code of the Scientist and
its Relationship to Ethics":

we live in a time in which the industrial countries are experiencing
unparalleled
technological development, in large part the fruit of science.
However, the benefits
of new technologies are distributed in a grossly unbalanced manner,
not only within
individualized industrialized countries, but also among all the nations of the
world. Overcrowding and environmental degradation are already
significantly reducing
the quality of life in the developed nations and give stark evidence of their
inability to confront the problems of the future and its planning.
Excess population
and famine are on the increase in some regions, while in others there are those
who enjoy material goods and leisure as never before. In a word, our inability
to regulate the processes of cultural and technological development
poses a grave
threat to our ability to achieve a decent and humane future."1

Dr. Cournand does not define decent and humane, but he obviously
feels that decency
and humanity have something to do with a more equal distribution of
the benefits
produced by science and technology. Somehow, as modern scientific
beings, we believe
that our upward mobility in technology will be matched by upward
mobility in moral
and ethical matters. But as has often been pointed out, our
scientific and technological
advances have not been followed by improved behavior patterns.

As Christians, we must recognize that the ''inability to distribute
the benefits
of technology" of which Dr. Cournand speaks, is not an inability at all,
but a conscious, deliberate and in many cases, a maliciously chosen course of
action. Our so-called inability is really a deep-seated selfishness, a desire
for self satisfaction at all costs. The Bible - the book which guides our lives
and sets our standards for progress - says that progress is not possible apart
from man's acknowledgment of the Creator of the universe. Only as we
seek so right
our standing before our Maker will it become possible for us so change for the
better.

Christ, in John 6:38, says that He came to earth not to do His own will, but to
do the will of His Father. Whatever discomfort and inconvenience that
might have
caused Him personally, His mind was set toward fulfilling the will of God from
His youngest years. Paul, in Romans 12:1,2 tells us that as
Christians, our highest
calling is, also, to do the will of the Father in Heaven. If we are
so prove the
good, acceptable and perfect will of God, we must be able to decipher
that will.
For this purpose, God has given us the Bible, which He tells us in II
Tim. 3:16,17
is Godbreathed, and is ''profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect,
thoroughly
furnished unto all good works."

Progress, then, for the Christian, must always be defined in light of
God's word.
Are we, because of our advanced education and technology, really any
more progressive
in God's sense of the term than was our forebearer Adam and his
descendants? Can
we realty boast (before God) of the accomplishments of modern man? No,
we cannot! It is true that gadgets, politics, government, cities, medicine etc.
are more confusing and complex today, but this does not imply
progress. And should
we deem it proper to boast in she confusion and complexity we often mistakenly
call progress, let us beware; for a moment's objective review will reveal the
folly in such boasting. Despite 100 years of modern science, education and the
"age of aquarius," we have more murder, rape, theft and
general skulduggery
than at any time in our history. And, though the Western world has
luxuries only
dreamed of by the majority of the world's peoples, suicide, drug
abuse, and general
depression run rampant. The United Nations and other peacemaking
bodies and individuals
practice detente with all the pomp and circumstance moderns can
muster, but peace
is nowhere to be seen. Why, if we have advanced so, do we have such unsolvable
problems? Faith in, and love of, our own power to do is fruitless, says God (I
John 2:15-17) and will bring destruction, for all our progress will
someday burn
up as wood, hay, and stubble. Festo Kivengere states, in his contribution to At
the Edge of Hope:

"Progress, what a charming word; it carries a fascinating attraction - a
hope for the better! It is a beckoning ideal motivating action for improvement
and forward movement. But progress to what? To where? If progress
loses its goal,
it becomes its own goal and loses its control and balance, consuming itself by
boring repetition. It is the transcendent dimension - "in
Christ" that
gives progress a human face and a meaningful direction. Progress is saved from
dehumanization only as it is directed toward him from whom comes the
light shining
in the darkness of our history. Progress must be kept under the
control of God's
love,"2

A larger house or church, a better car, a more important job by the
world's standards
- these, then, cannot be considered progress for the Christian.
Twentieth century
humankind's obsession for the latest and most convenient gadget or toy and she
resulting wasteful obsolescence of, in many cases, perfectly adequate
predecessors,
must not be our way as followers of Christ. What exactly is progress
for the Christian?
We have said that it is doing the will of God as that will is
revealed in Scripture.
How can we make progress according to God's word and will?

1. Share the gospel. The Bible says in II Peter 3:9b that the Lord is "not
willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance."
Truly, God wills the salvation of souls, according to all that we
read in Scripture.
Progress, for us, then, must be partially accomplished by the planting of the
seeds of the salvation message in the hearts of our fellows. A recent
Christianity
Today carries an article entitled "Preaching with Power and Purpose.' In
it Lloyd Perry of Trinity Evangelical Divinity School writes:

"The preacher should measure his ministry in terms of eternity rather than
time. Like the prophets, he may sigh anxiously, but he will not despair, for he
knows that in God's good time the challenge will be worth it all. The stamp of
success may never appear in time, but it will in eternity."3

2. Share the benefits of bountiful economies, science and technology with a needy world. As Christians, we often thank God for prospering us,
with little recognition that much of what we call prosperity is really selfish
gluttony and over-indulgence at the expense of the rest of the world's peoples.
As followers of Christ in the western world, we have, in many cases, swallowed
hook, tine and sinker, the message that happiness and progress come
in fancy houses
and clothes, expensive cars and entertainments, sumptuous dining, and fat bank
accounts. Nothing could be farther from the will of God for us.
Progress, in this
case, may in fact be defined as regrets in the eyes of secular man.
Our ultimate
trust for the future is to be not in man's ability to progress through science
and technology, but in God's providence and goodness (Matt. 6:24b33) Collecting
large amounts of bounty is not right, God tells us in this passage;
and in other
parts of Scripture such as Dent. 24:12, Ps. 41:1, Pr. 19:1?, and Mats. 19:21,
He makes it clear that what would have gone into private storage were we left
to our own devices, should go to supply the needs of the rest of His
creation.

Learning to make do on this earth for the purpose of giving more away, rather
than constantly trying to get ahead, may be regress in the eyes of
the non-Christian
onlooker, but in God's eyes it is truly progress. It is laying up treasure in
Heaven rather than on earth, and this again, is God's will for His
faithful.

3. Get to know God. In a day when progress is measured by the
standards of complexity,
sophistication and power, a main goal of the Christian must be to know, in the
most intimate sense, the author and sustainer of all that is. As Richard Bube
reminds us in The Human Quest:

"If God were to 'turn Himself off,' everything would cease to
exist! Without
God there are no laws, no world, no us;
Not only do we rely upon God as the Creator at the beginning, as the source of
order and purpose in the world, as the personal Father who gives
meaning to love
and depth to personal relationships; we rely upon God for our very
existence."4

When we have grasped what Bube says here, we can begin to put human progress in
its proper perspective. Only because a wise and all powerful God allows it do
we think, exist, understand and know anything at all. We have been
granted a degree
of mastery, progress, and power in this world, but it has meaning only when we
recognize that is is a space and time gift from a gracious Creator.
To know this
God, the source of every good and perfect gift, is indeed progress
for the Christian.

Where science, technology, and their resultant "progress" will take
us in these uncertain days, is not clear, although there have been predictions
ranging from war and annihilation by the pessimistic, to a new breed
of superbeings
by the humanistic optimist. What we know for certain is that though
"progress"
has made life easier and more fulfilling in some respects, it has
made it harder,
more painful, and more complicated in others. Though we can treat the physical
symptoms of V.D., we cannot solve the host of problems which may
arise simultaneously
with it - i.e. the unwanted child, the psychological pain and guilt.
Though efficient
machinery for production of term papers and sophisticated information retrieval
systems are available to today's students, cheating (perhaps by
copying, or paying
someone else to do your work), stealing of books and journals has
reached epidemic
proportions; the saddest part is that in our modern progressive society, most
teachers have no criterion by which to judge the behavior of their
prodigy, though
they somehow feel that cheating and stealing behavior is wrong.

As part of the Christian community, you and I must divorce ourselves from the
20th century American dream that tells us we must be constantly
progressing toward
bigger and better at the expense of others, and realize that a
non-theistic, scientistic
world view provides no basis for definable or directional change progress must
simply equal change. The ideas of progress and regress, right and wrong, good
and evil, forward and backward, barbaric and civilized, have only the
most nebulous
and relative definitions unless grounded in the God who made Heaven and earth,
the Lord Jehovah of Judaeo-Christianity.
References